If you’re gearing up for Ham on Nye on February 4 at the Creation Museum anyway, you might also squeeze this in: Evolutionary creationist Darrel Falk vs. young Earth creationist Todd Wood in Dayton Tennessee, February 3. The latter is billed as a “conversation,” mind you, at Rhea County Courthouse (home of the Scopes Trial). The event is free and open to the public.

Todd Wood is president of Core Academy and Darrel Falk is former president. Of BioLogos
According to Joe Francis, biologist and department chair at The Master’s College in California,

I was able to attend a session where Darrel and Todd interacted. They have become friends but hold strongly to their core positions. Darrel is pretty much in-line with Biologos and the evolving evolutionary creationist position which has become slightly more conservative lately (I think they got concerned about losing their audience) but differs with Enns position on a historical vs allegorical Adam. Todd is a forward-thinking young age creationist but holds to the core YEC positions on scripture. They are very interesting to listen to and they both are “good on their feet” when asked questions from a gallery….I find their interactions informative since they avoid circus style polemics characteristic of the typical entertainment style debate.

Hope the result makes it to YouTube.

Note: “Evolutionary creation”: God used Darwinian evolution to create and did not necessarily know how it would turn out. In a 2012 issue, Christianity Today profiled Darrel Falk and Todd Wood) together.

For those interested in the REAL story of the Scopes Trial as contrasted with the Hollywood history in “Inherit the Wind,” see the website http://www.themonkeytrial.com or download the original trial transcript. You might want to also look at the 2010 movie on this trial starring Brian Dennehy as Charles Darwin, Sen. Fred Thompson as William Jennings Bryan, and Colm Meany as H.L. Mencken. Fun!

Note: “Evolutionary creation”: God used Darwinian evolution to create and did not necessarily know how it would turn out.

…in all seriousness ? What kind of strawman argument is that ? A god is a god and so what we find difficult or impossible within this universe doesn’t apply to a god that transcends spacetime.

Sure something within this universe cannot work out how it will turn out but something that is supernatural and outside of this universe has no such constraints.

I’ll give an example; the two generals’ problem is provably undecidable but some other observer that knew the position and momentum of all objects in the universe would be able to decide. That the uncertainty principle limits knowing position and momentum is a fundamental limit within this universe it does not follow that such a limit applies to observers outside the universe. (outside is not a physical location but metaphysical – for example the god could be at all points in spacetime in the universe).

This is not a proof for god but simply pointing out that someone throwing in a deliberate constraint as to what a god can know for is an unsubstantiated premise. It’s done for no good reason other than so some other version of creation appears more probable.

Well two can play that game and it is far more likely that whoever wrote the creation stories in the Bible misunderstood the “answers” given by “God”.

I’m a secular humanist and even I think using a tactic of limiting what god can do isn’t a worthwhile argument because in the end it doesn’t advance your own argument (i.e. falsifying a null hypothesis does not prove the hypothesis).